List generation models

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the fields returned and notes 'indicative cost', which signals approximate rather than binding pricing. It does not mention pagination or authorization, but for a read-only listing tool this is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and closed with the usage directive. Every clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call this discovery tool. For a one-optional-parameter lister with annotations covering safety, nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single asset_type parameter has an enum documented in the schema, so the schema fully carries the parameter semantics. The description does not restate or extend the asset_type filtering, which is the expected baseline of 3 when structured data does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('image and video models') and enumerates exactly what each entry carries (modes, aspect ratios, resolutions, quality options, indicative cost). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listers like list_jobs and list_pipelines, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger to call it ('Call this before choosing a non-default model'), which is actionable context. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when-not to call it, so it lacks the full when/alternatives framing of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.